Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday August 22, 2013 @05:11PM
from the don't-let-the-connoisseurs-bite dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A guest at at Quebec hotel was bitten by bed bugs, brought some down to the front desk and asked for new room. While the fully booked hotel offers to get him another room in a different hotel, he stays out the night then leaves — telling people at the hotel — some of whom also check out. When he wrote about it on Trip Advisor, the hotel demanded he take it down and when he did they sued him for $95,000."

What a nightmare! When I reported the situation to the managing stuff, there were no emergency to handle the situation because the decision maker was not available during the week end and it was a Saturday.
Instead they offered to transfer my son and I to a hotel nearby where a room was available because they were concerned I was going to cause Mayhem
They finally offered to investigate the room despite the 4 BED BUGS I had contained in a glass and pictures and videos I had showed them.
I was supposed to stay one more night but instead chose to move to a hotel nearby; turned out to be cleaner-up to date-bigger room- and cheaper rate and that was the Holiday Inn Express down the road at 3145 Avenue de Hotels.
Beware of BED BUGS! If you are looking for a scratch free night sleep, stay elsewhere, you will be doing you and your loved ones a favour! Trust me...and that's why the Internet is a great tool!

The hotel is not denying that this guy had bedbugs in his room on the night of his stay. Apparently the hotel's justification for suing comes down to them believing that only his room was infested, and that this was an isolated incident.

The hotel is not denying that this guy had bedbugs in his room on the night of his stay. Apparently the hotel's justification for suing comes down to them believing that only his room was infested, and that this was an isolated incident.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as "only one room infested with bed bugs" in a hotel. (Think about how they're serviced.) This could be an entertaining lawsuit. The problem I see is that the hotel taking him to court puts even more media attention on the hotel being infested.

This. You can also tell by what state they are in and whether there is shedded skin. As they become adults they shed a layer. That's not going to happen in a matter of hours. Also any signs of eggs etc. I experienced this in a hotel in Florida. They didn't deny the infestation (didn't even feign surprise), but they insisted we pay for the first night despite not having stayed.

I got on their Facebook page and started Tweeting relentlessly. They locked their twitter account and made the Facebook page private. No BS libel suit though. Of course we had 3 rooms in different wings all in various stages of infection. They did manage to get my tripadvisor review pulled (claiming I didn't stay there). If I didn't stay there then why do I have a bill for the night? Can't have it both ways. Tripadvisor wasn't interested in my receipt, they just said to post it again and make sure there is nothing in the wording that sounds like I didn't stay there.

Personally I'd sick the local health authority on them. I've done that to local restaurants (after getting food poisoning) and in the case of the Florida hotel I even sought out their local inspectors. A bad review may or may not hurt them. A failed inspection can have them shut down and protects your ass against a libel suit.

I worked in 3 hotels for about 6 years, big names, one was a Bestwestern. In all three hotels, we got bed bugs on a regular basis. We have protocols on how to put the room and the linens in quarantine as soon as this is discovered. Then we call someone to spray something ll over the room to kill the bed bugs. It's also common thing to put in quarantine the rooms beside the affected room.

So there is such a thing as "only one room infested", I also think that the guest over-reacted... Was it it's first time in an hotel ?

I still agree that the hotel should not sue the guest, maybe just explaining to the public what I just said... Informing them.

One room infested but you get them repeatedly... hmm might be a flaw in the method. Do the hotels close that room and the adjoining room because those are the only ones infested or because they don't want to lose business by vacating the hotel and spraying the whole thing? I had them at my house for about a year because an idiot that I rented to went to his buddies for a weekend party even though he knew his friend had them.

These little critters are pretty much indestructible and can move just abou

I worked in 3 hotels for about 6 years, big names, one was a Bestwestern. In all three hotels, we got bed bugs on a regular basis. We have protocols on how to put the room and the linens in quarantine as soon as this is discovered. Then we call someone to spray something ll over the room to kill the bed bugs. It's also common thing to put in quarantine the rooms beside the affected room.

So there is such a thing as "only one room infested", I also think that the guest over-reacted... Was it it's first time in an hotel ?

I still agree that the hotel should not sue the guest, maybe just explaining to the public what I just said... Informing them.

I understand what you're saying (and I have a friend who owns a motel, so hear many of these stories first hand).

The operative word to me, in this case, is infested. It's absolutely true that a traveler could bring bed bugs into a room from clothing or luggage -- it happens all the time -- that's how they spread, after all. But usually there are only a few, perhaps even in the single digits, and they take time to propagate to what a reasonable person would call "an infestation".

. Then we call someone to spray something ll over the room to kill the bed bugs.

I'm not aware of any poison that works on bedbugs - is there really one? Heat works well - get a room up over 120 and keep it there for a day (even inside the walls), or over 140 for a few hours. Washing cloths does nothing, but the dryer on hot works great by all accounts.

I somehow doubt the hotel was bedbug-free after "spraying something". More likely the population was reduced to where they weren't obvious, only to "mysteriously" re-appear.

A quick search on EPA's web site lists 41 products are registered with the EPA for killing bed bugs. Judging by the list of active ingredients it looks like there are at least six pesticides that will kill bed bugs.

Carbon dioxide works great on bed bugs. If you can seal off the room and fill it with CO2 they are dead meat. Or if you can get the heat up to about 140 degrees the devils will perish as well. Dry Ice is a bit pricey but if you covered the area with blocks of dry ice and then put a tarp over the bed and upholstered items and carpet that should knock them down pretty hard.

As I understand it DDT was used in matresses specifically to kill/prevent bed-bugs, and was very effective. This is part of the reason that the US/Canada has had many decades of being reletively bed-bug worry-free (or at least it has been uncommon). The problem with DDT was that it was found to persist into the environment, would get into the fish, which were then eaten by birds, which resulted in soft egg-shells and the decline of species such as the California condor and bald eagle. This is why it was banned in 1972.

It has taken 30-40 years, the eagle population has returned, but so have the bed bugs.

His review was of his room; he didn't sleep in the entire hotel and didn't claim to find the bugs anywhere but his own room. I'm no lawyer but the backlash from doing something as stupid as suing a customer for telling the truth will likely cost the chain much more than the $95k they wanted from him. I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up paying him in the end (or at least his legal fees).

He doesn't need to, as the loser will pay the winner's court costs up here.

They have nothing to stand on legally, and the fact that their lawyers let this go through is astonishing.

Libel has to be false, and in this case he honestly believes it to be true. The hotel has zero legal standing, and there's a good chance that the judge will...... oh wait, this is Quebec, so they'd be using Napoleonic code vs Common. I really don't know what would happen, but if it got to SCC, they'd toss it. That's about a m

Yeah as someone who had the displeasure of having to erradicate my house of these horrifying bugs I picked up from a hotel (Seriously, it took nearly 6 months to finally be able to say they where gone. I have nightmares about those damn things and to this day I still have scars) , they do NOT just exist in one room. The little bastards spread as fast as they can and set up escape routes when sprayed.

Any hotel with bedbugs should be SHUT DOWN until a health department inspector can verify ALL of the bugs are gone, no ifs, no buts, mandatory shutdown. These things are a dangerous pandemic.

Any hotel with bedbugs should be SHUT DOWN until a health department inspector can verify ALL of the bugs are gone, no ifs, no buts, mandatory shutdown. These things are a dangerous pandemic.

Dangerous pandemic? How so? Last time I was researching bedbugs I was surprised to find out that, unlike other blood suckers like ticks and mosquitos, bedbugs do not transmit disease. They are just irritants. Shutting down an entire hotel because they found a few bedbugs seems a bit extreme. Especially given that it probably wouldn't accomplish much. A new infestation could be brought in on somebody's luggage the same day they reopen.

They may not transmit deadly diseases like ticks or mosquitoes, but the only time I was exposed to bedbugs, each bite led to an allergic reaction as big as an egg that lasted for a week (with medication).

The very first paragraph of that document also states clearly that the government only protects those freedoms so long as it deems reasonable to do so. There is no definition of what they think is reasonable.

Not quite. The specific formulation is:"the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"

So they have to demonstrably justify every instance of restricting the freedoms. This is subject to judicial review, and the Supreme Court of Canada has established a test [wikipedia.org] for it. It is still subjective, but it is not something that is decided unilaterally by the legislature.

Also note that this isn't really fundamentally different from the situation in the USA, where the same thing exists by convention. If the First Amendment, for example, was absolute, it would be protecting slander and libel, imminent threats, arbitrary disclosure of classified information etc - but it does not.

Slander and libel are civil torts, not criminal charges brought under any law made by Congress (or the states) to restrict the freedom of speech.

Fine; how about copyright infringement?

Assault is based not merely on the content of the message but the circumstances. If you say, "I'm gonna punch Mr. Slippery in the nose!" that's protected speech; if you say it while walking towards me with you fist raised, it's a different matter.

Yes, it is a different matter - even though you are still not actually attacking anyone. It's the imminence of the lawless action that makes the speech criminal. But make no mistake, it is still the speech that is criminal here, since nothing else has happened yet.

Heck, even the court opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio presents it in those terms:"These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permi

This is trumped by hate speech laws, for example. It stands in all cases where it is not overridden for some reason thought reasonable by the legal system. So lawsuits can happen about anything, and will come to court as long as the plaintiff can convince the judge that the nullification of freedom of expression is reasonable in this instance.

Seems like in this case, they're trying to trump freedom of expression with libel/slander laws. Possible, but not likely in this case, and this is NOT the kind of publicity a hotel should be wanting to bring on itself.

Here is the thing of it. Hate speech laws are not about trumping anything but rather balancing out the rights of two different individuals and their rights. With hate speech, you are threatening the fundamental rights from section 1 which are life, liberty and security of person. This differs from the American version which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If your life is being threatened then you cannot exercise the right to life or security of person effectively. This is a fundamental and important difference between the two systems. In Canada, you have to be able to feel "free" in order to be free and it focuses on individual security rather than security of the state or society.

If the Americans had the right to security of person, perhaps they would not have such a huge surveillance state.

Public incitement of hatred (s. 319[1]). Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a crime].

— s. 319[1], Criminal Code of Canada

If I say "white people are dumbasses" that's legal. If I say "white people are dumbasses, we should corner them in dark alleys and kil

This differs from the American version which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There is no guarantee of such in any American document that has force of law.

That phrase is from the Declaration of Independence, which, while it has value in guiding our legislators, jurists, and other leaders in making and interpreting law, has direct value only for its historical significance.

Here is the thing of it. Hate speech laws are not about trumping anything but rather balancing out the rights of two different individuals and their rights. With hate speech, you are threatening the fundamental rights from section 1 which are life, liberty and security of person. This differs from the American version which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Bullshit. Incitement to violence is illegal in the US. Hate speech is not that, or rather it's vastly broader: it's politically unacceptable speech. Yeah, the government protects my rights to politically acceptable speech - that's some freedom there.

Most people really only believe in freedom of speech that doesn't offend them.

Any free speech story on slashdot inevitably involves international comparisons. If this had happened in the US, I'd expect comments about Canadian free speech laws as well as a variety of European ones. Likely Australian ones too.

FYI, there's no such thing as free speech in Australia. We don't have any equivalent to the Bill of Rights (or Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

There's an implied freedom of speech [findlaw.com.au] in our constitution, but it's certainly not explicit. It's been tested a number of times (with the result going both ways) in the High Court.

Businesses aren't some unified group, they're just people like you and I trying to make it in a world that is often unfriendly. It's a small percentage of true douches (looking long and hard at you, Goldman Sachs) that give the name "businessman" a bad name.

Often, the schleps running such a business have no clue about things like the Streisand effect. Come to think of it, why don't you become a businessman and set the record straight? Surely, you could beat out this moron...

But that's why we come to slashdot -- Two stories for the price of one!

The summary is usually different from the article and two separate discussion (one about summary another one about article) are carried out in the comments section. I assume this is intentional, because no editor would allow it otherwise, right?:)

Assuming that the story the guest told was true (and it seems it was, based on the hotel admitting it), how can the hotel possibly win when the reviewer is stating facts? If the review was completely made up, I would assume libel laws would side with the hotel. But when the whole situation is based on facts, and the reviewer is merely passing those facts on to the public, how can the hotel even expect to win?

The article is right, the hotel should have helped him out more from the get go instead of trying to do damage control.

Don't assume that civil law suits will be treated how they are in the US or in any other provinces in Canada. Quebec treats civil suits under French civil law.... a complex different system that we are used to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law [wikipedia.org]

Don't assume that civil law suits will be treated how they are in the US or in any other provinces in Canada. Quebec treats civil suits under French civil law.... a complex different system that we are used to.

I don't advocate the hotel's position here for one minute, but I think they might have a case under willful defamation.... even though true, the facts were publicly presented with malicious intent to publicly discredit them, where they were presumably making every effort to resolve the situation once they became aware of it.

In many places, truth is not a defense. If it harms someone, it did harm. You can't badmouth certain industries in TX or FL, for example, regardless of the truth of the statements. Too bad free speech doesn't exist in the US anymore. We should move to some place more free, like Soviet Russia.

That is plainly incorrect. As a constitutional matter, truthful negative statements are protected speech in the United States. You have misinterpreted the precedent.

Having a right to say something is not the same as having a right to not be sued for saying something. You're discussing the criminality of saying something, when the issue here is strictly a civil one.

But the civil issue is covered by anti-SLAPP [wikipedia.org] laws. And apparently, Quebec is the only Canadian province with an anti-SLAPP law, so this hotel may be in big trouble now. (Twenty-eight states in the US have anti-SLAPP laws. If your state or province isn't one, it's time to nag your legislators.)

In Canada, you have to be proven to be acting maliciously [Halsbury's], in order to sustain a judgment against you where you're making one or more true statements. In general, if you're telling the truth and nothing but the truth, you can't be convicted. If it's a SLAPP suit and you're in Quebec, you'll get "costs against" the person who sued you, meaning that they will have to pay your lawyer and court costs.

You're arguably thinking of the UK, where almost anything can be used to justify a suit. We're

While it isn't guaranteed to keep bed bugs from my luggage I generally travel light, if I stay in a hotel hang my bag in the bathroom preferably where it doesn't touch anything (shower door track works well) and leave the light on.

Bed bugs prefer darkness, if they have a dark area and a light area they will stay to the dark most of the time, they also typically move in 'protected' areas such as the crevices where carpeting meets the wall, under mattresses between couch cushions and such.

Lawsuits are expensive, even in Canada. I'm sure that the hotel does not expect to win, it expects to intimidate future bad reviewers.

Then they picked the wrong province to be located in, because Quebec is the only province with anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law on the books--a law designed expressly to punish any such attempts to use the legal system to intimidate.

The summary says he took the review down and then they sued him. The article says he did not take the review down. I will admit that I wasn't immediately able to find the review, but there are three others on tripadvisor about the Hotel Quebec having bedbugs. It is a chain, though so not sure if it is the same one.
Aren't bedbugs really tiny and hard to see? Isn't it more likely that these were not bedbugs the species, but some kind of other bugs on the bed?

"At first this hotel looks ok....until you wake up in the middle of the night at 3:00AM because you've been scratching all over and realize your bed is infested with BED BUGS!What a nightmare! When I reported the situation to the managing stuff, there were no emergency to handle the situation because the decision maker was not available during the week end and it was a Saturday.Instead they offered to transfer my son and I to a hotel nearby where a room was available because they were concerned I was going to cause MayhemThey finally offered to investigate the room despite the 4 BED BUGS I had contained in a glass and pictures and videos I had showed them.I was supposed to stay one more night but instead chose to move to a hotel nearby; turned out to be cleaner-up to date-bigger room- and cheaper rate and that was the Holiday Inn Express down the road at 3145 Avenue de Hotels.Beware of BED BUGS! If you are looking for a scratch free night sleep, stay elsewhere, you will be doing you and your loved ones a favour! Trust me...and that's why the Internet is a great tool!
Stayed April 2013, traveled with family"

There is a seriously major bed bug infestation going on right now on the east coast of North America. There hasn't been this large of a problem with bed bugs in this area for more than 60+ years.

If the person is being bit it is most likely bed bugs. They are parasites that suck blood and because of this they are far worse than cockroaches, they also tend to breed as fast as roaches. The very presence in one room indicates they are present or will soon be present everywhere in the building. Standard treatment protocol for bed bugs is to spray not only the dwelling they are in but every adjacent dwelling area. In an apartment building this would mean the apartment in question plus all the surrounding apartments including above and below. Its not unusual to require treating the entire floor they are found on but the floor above and below as well.

"...post reviews anonymously, as no good can come from identifying yourself." FALSE but I understand your point. The protection of free speech isn't granted at the whim of people in power. It comes from credible individuals placing their personal ass on the line. It always has. It always will. Mitreya, cowering anonymously is NOT free speech...it's capitulation. It's a form of giving in and allowing yourself to be intimidated...and becoming part of the problem of eroding liberty.

I realize the negative publicity they received from his Trip Advisor review has hurt their business but by filing the lawsuit they're guaranteeing that every person who hasn't read the review will now become aware of their bed bug problem. And with the hotel not denying there were bedbugs the lawsuit is a horrible idea.

You're not allowed to remove the bed bugs from the room, since they count as hotel property. If he would have just put them back after showing the front desk, maybe none of this would have happened?

But seriously, businesses are really getting fixated on maintaining good appearances via social media these days. They view the whole thing as a marketing/advertising playground for them, so honest review sites with negative reviews are a real thorn in the side for them. I don't think the hotel has any legal grounds for this lawsuit if the review is truthful.... but that doesn't mean it won't try intimidation tactics anyway.

It amazes me how companies pay people to watch Twitter feeds like a hawk these days. You can be a Twitter user who never tweets a single thing and basically has no followers. But if you have problems with a product or service and figure out the right name to tag on a tweet to get the company's attention? They're almost always right on top of replying and trying to do damage control. Never-mind the fact that same user might have posted something just as negative over on Facebook or elsewhere, and the company never so much as notices that comment.

Yesterday: I figured there were hotels in Canada, but I never really thought about it.

Today: If I ever go to Canada, I'd better avoid the Hotel Quebec, because those bastards have bedbugs and sue people out of house and home rather than fix their problems. Either that, or the place attracts crazies with some pathology that causes them to make things up. Regardless, I'll just avoid it.

When I was a kid, bed bugs were some sort of myth, they just didn't exist anymore, like smallpox.That just may have been because I grew up in BFE, though, with almost no immigration and little international travel. Now they are widespread through Canadian cities, not just flophouses either.

Current ways of killing them seem to be:1. pyrethin? (plant based) insecticide, they are more or less immune2. something else, but has to be applied by extermintor 3 times to kill, as it doesn't kill eggs. Cheapass slumlords never pay for three treatments, so this solves nothing, generally.3. Heat. Heating the whole apartment block to 45 degrees (uhh.. 110? or 120F) for an hour or two kills them all dead, including eggs. expensive.4. higher test stuff that is illegal to use indoors, maybe cause neurotoxicity or cancer or who knows what.

Doesn't seem like anyone does research on this, maybe they do and I just don't know about it. I'd certainly say this is going to get worse before it gets better, though.

What about diatomaceous earth? It's fossilized algae, and a natural insecticide, absorbing the lipids from the exoskeletons of insects.

I've read that if you pull your bed from the wall, take 4 empty/clean tuna cans with diatomaceous earth in them, and put one under each leg of the bed, you can get rid of them. They crawl in and out of it on their way to feast on you.

If I had them, in addition to the cans-under-legs, I'd be dusting the floors, the sheets, the bed-frame, the bed-boards, the electrical sockets, etc, to get rid of them.

There was also a BBC show, either Edwardian Farm, or Victorian Farm, where they showed the housewife scrubbing bed frames down twice a year with lye to keep them under control.

the building i lived in recently had performed a treatment with diatomaceous earth when my neighbor had an outbreak. they used a bulb duster to poot DE into the power outlets, under the floor moulding, under the beds and the radiator, and across the gaps in the front door. I have a dust allergy, and did not even notice the treatment, which was done in about 10 minutes.

the small shards of the diatom's silica skeleton cut the bed bugs apart, but are harmless to people. Diatomaceous earth is the most effect

For all practical purposes there's no way, I repeat, no way to "heat the whole apartment block" to eradicate bed bugs. It's a myth perpetuated by the eradication industry. It's physically impossible unless you'd raise the building off the ground, isolate from all utilities, wrap air-tight with an insulating air gap between the plastic cover and the walls, and then heat up from inside. That's how I've seen someone get rid of a horrible infestation in a trailer home, and it's about the only way to pull it off. It did work, too - a year later, still no bed bugs. For normal buildings - forget it.

You see, bed bugs scamper away from heat, and when you're heating a building up, there are always gradients that let the suckers find the way to the basement, the attached car garage, whatever. Good luck heating the concrete basement or other adjoining walls to 45C, as that would be necessary to really kill them. Never mind that most heat treatments do not isolate the walls from outside air, so the walls never get hot enough.

The way heat-based bed bug eradication is normally done is you bring in a high-power space heater system that heats the air in the building. This is about the best scenario for bed bugs: due to slow heat exchange between hot air and the walls, the latter heat up slowly and let the bed bugs get out of the way before anything bad happens to them. That method doesn't kill any appreciable numbers of bed bugs, they simply go away for a while -- all the way to cracks and crevices in the foundation, if need be. It's then only a matter of time for the infestation to recover, as the suckers simply come back. Yes, their numbers will be reduced, but they'll come back all right.

There is a big problem with how the heat-based methods are evaluated: the test methods don't address the issue of bed bugs simply relocating elsewhere.

AFAIK, there are exactly zero pesticides that are approved for non-professional use the U.S. and that work against bed bugs. I repeat: ZERO. None. Nada. You're not buying anything unless you're licensed professional. The "higher test stuff" is not some nebulous thing either. There is exactly one category of insecticides that do work against bed bugs: organophosphates [usyd.edu.au]. Out of a whole lot of stuff, only one category. One that's highly regulated and universally toxic to pretty much anything with a nervous system, including humans. For all I know, if organophosphates came to be widely used against bed bugs, it'd be only a matter of time until those suckers found a way to cope with it, or even becoming totally immune. Perhaps whatever mutations would be responsible for it would also be of some use in humans - one can only hope.

For all practical purposes there's no way, I repeat, no way to "heat the whole apartment block" to eradicate bed bugs.

I suppose I should tell my friend that she's working for a fictitious company then... since that's exactly what they do.

The way heat-based bed bug eradication is normally done is you bring in a high-power space heater system that heats the air in the building.

Well y'see, that's where things differ. The company my friend works at doesn't just do that... they practically put the entire building they are going to work on into what looks a lot like a huge-ass enormous sleeping bag. The whole building is evacuated, and they then go through the entire building, basically insulating the entire building from the outside environment with insulation, and then they pump the heat in. I've actually seen buildings that have gotten this done while the bags were in place, and based on what I saw for myself, I'd guess the process is at least a full day of labour for a whole team, maybe even two.

I have no doubt that some heat escapes, but apparently not enough to keep them from maintaining the temperature for the necessary period. The company my friend works for guarantees their work, and she's told me that while she's worked there, nobody she knows of has complained that the treatment was ineffective.

Good luck heating the concrete basement or other adjoining walls to 45C, as that would be necessary to really kill them

That's apparently exactly what they do... but it is also apparently a VERY costly operation.

You see, bed bugs scamper away from heat

Yes... but the treatment this company does leaves the bugs with no place to scamper to. They are fully contained inside of the big insulated bag which is heated to the necessary temperatures and the temperature held there for quite a long time.

The hotel is clearly stupid and they will also lose this battle. But why did the customer refuse to move to another hotel? They chose to stay in a bed which they knew had bed bugs? And suggested that the hotel manager get down on her knees and beg him not to tell anyone? Sounds like a serial victim on a power trip to me. Can't wait for something bad to happen to them so they can become the outraged centre of attention.

I stayed at a hotel in Vegas recently, one right on the strip. While taking a dump one evening I caught motion out the corner of my eye and a bug larger than my thumb was found to be racing at me! I had to lift my feet for the damn thing to run by before it became trapped in the corner behind the toilet. The lights were full on too, he was bold as brass.

I trapped the bastard in a glass and called down to the front desk a bit freaked out - it was after midnight. I explained there was a bug issue and they sent up some poor guy from maintenance, he arrived with a vacuum cleaner. Imagine his surprise when I showed him the bug! I told him I had no idea what it was and that I hoped it was some sort of weird mutant Vegas bug. His eyes big as saucers he told me "no sir, that's a cockaroach!". He stepped back out of the room and radioed his superiors - who told him they wanted him to bring the bug to them! (lol)

He covered it with a washcloth and off he went none too happy. Management promptly called offering to move me but I was tired and declined, I spent the night with the lights on clothed.

The next morning I went down to speak to a manager and was again offered a different room, I took one close by so I wouldn't have to schlep my stuff too far. Within the next three days I saw a "Do Not Disturb" sign back on that door. The room was out of service for maybe two nights and I was able to confirm this when I found it noted on my bill. Two days was all they spent cleaning up. Now this wasn't bed bugs which are hard as hell to kill but it was the largest roach I've ever seen and the damn thing had wings too! No way in hell did this sucker grow up and spend his life in that room and no way in hell did he get in through some sort of crack, I looked all over for possible entryways with a flashlight. This fucker HAD to have squeezed under the door from the adjoining room or from the hall - asshats leaving their room service out in the hall probably provided him a damn good sustenance.

At the end of the day this hotel, which I had thought pretty decent, seemed pretty nonplussed by this whole thing and not the slightest bit embarrassed. Room out of service a bare minimum and no effort I could see to do anything about adjoining rooms or the source of this issue. I have to say I'm not sure I'll be staying there again!

P.S. I used to travel with a blacklight. I found one or two memorable things with it and honestly I no longer carry it - some things I just don't want to know!

It sounds like the one you encountered was an American cockroach [wikipedia.org], which is really, really common in the South. In fact, I didn't even know "little cockroaches" existed until recently -- the 2-inch-long ones are "normal" around here (in Atlanta).

My girlfriend and I take weekend trips often during the summer, and we use hotels.com to book lodging. While in Ohio earlier this summer, one of the places we stayed was terrible. No bedbugs, but poor repair, smelly room, bad service, the list goes on and on. IN addition, thier entry on hotels.com stated that they offered contentinal breakfast, which they did not.

Upon returning from our trip, we decided to rate and write a hotels.com review to warn others. We were not disrespectful or profane. We stated the facts and our displeasure with them only. A week or so later, my GF noticed the review still had not posted. Then she received an email stating that it would not because it violated the TOS of hotels.com. No explanation of how, just that we had. There were no names given (except the name of the hotel), and as I stated earlier, nothing but facts about ther visit, and our displeasure (admittedly and opinion).

I know where hotels.com gets its bread buttered now, and it is not from us customers. A chain hotel can exert much more fiscal pressure than a single customer.

I am owed a free night from them, and I am thinking of booking hotels using another source after that, but will the result be any different? My cynical brain says no.

Because bedbugs are the ultimate venereal disease of hotel chains. They are very difficult to get rid of, and even if the hotel manages to wipe them out, once word gets out no one will touch them. Basically, the hotel chain feels the guy cost them real money. Though in truth, the hotel cost themselves the money by having the infestation in the first place; this guy just happened to be the patron who spoke out about it.

There is no "First Amendment" in Canada.
We have our own set of laws, and American laws don't apply.

Actually, since tripadvisor is located in the US it is a interesting legal arguement. Would Canada want US law to apply of a Canadian posted something that was actionable under US law simply because the website can be viewed in the US?

You can be sued under canadian libel law regardless of where the publication was. You could write a nasty letter that only a few scientists living in Antarctica ever see and I could still sue you in Montreal for it.

However, if the person is in the US the 2010 Speech Act bars them from collecting and allows a declaratory judgement clearing them of libel if the suit violates our 1st amendment. More to the point, it is interesting how laws collide in an environment where what is protected in one country is actionable in another. For the lawyers here: Would it be possible to file a SLAPP suit if the person lives in a state that offers such protections even if the original suit is filed in a non-US court?